The new Corvair came to meet the press and the public for ’65, much revised, and improving on every area of the original. For their January of ’65 issue, MT tries the turbocharged 180 hp Corsa version, the sportiest of the lot, replacing the Monza as the top-of-the-chain Corvair.
In the eyes of MT, all of the Corvair’s changes are welcomed and prove a marked improvement; “It’s a rare occurrence when such a car can be changed to broaden its appeal and please its established hard-core following at the same time.” Even rarer, to have a classic, influential, and beloved design superseded by an even more attractive shape. I’m hard-pressed to think of any other such instances. In the looks department, the ’65 is a stunner.
Before we go too far, Car And Driver did a more detailed review of the Corsa that has already appeared at CC. In any case, it’s always worth revisiting how a model was received from various points of view. While CD has a more technically comprehensive review, MT’s is more general in covering the Corvair as a product.
Looking at the model’s intended mission, ‘the Corsa was GM’s answer to American demands for a low-priced Europeanish performance/economy car – but with a touch of luxury and more seating capacity and luggage space than you normally find in imported cars.’ By most measures, the Corsa fulfilled those expectations; the lightweight unibody, the light steering with a small turning circle, and the space-efficient interior. All combined with good handling and braking. Qualities the previous Monza had achieved by ’64 and were improved upon by the ’65 Corsa.
The big news for ’65 was the Corvair’s new independent rear suspension. To make a long story short (somewhat convoluted in MT’s text), the original swing-axles were discarded in favor of a Corvette-derived setup. The new IRS attended many of the complaints associated with rear-engined designs, and MT found the car behaved free of handling vices even on wet surfaces. In general, the new Corvair was easier to control, with much-improved handling that delivered high cornering forces.
The interior gets high praise when it came to space utilization and ambiance. For some reason, very little is mentioned about the Corsa’s 180 hp turbo engine; kinda odd for a car touted as the first turbocharged production car ever. For more context, CD’s review covers this omission, and as can be suspected, the nascent turbo technology was found wanting. With the system lacking boost control, recirculating valves, or low inertia turbines, the system had considerable turbo lag and displayed stronger output only over the 3500 rpm mark.
MT closed the review by stating the new Corvair ‘won’t lose a single old friend. And because it’s a vastly improved car, it’ll gain many new ones.’ Of course, the market for sporty models was shifting quickly after the arrival of the Mustang in ’65, and the whole segment was to be altered greatly. Against the predictions of MT, after strong sales in ’65, the days of the Corvair were numbered.
For a more detailed and nuanced look of the ’65 Corvair:
The ‘65 Chevrolet Corvair has to be the single standout best design to come out of the United States in the post Second World War period. Even today the 1965 Corvair styling still looks fresh.
If you removed the front door vent windows and the chrome bumpers, then ‘65 Corvair styling would not out of place in 2023. But in saying this, I am not suggesting that less chrome and no vent windows amounts to an improvement.
Being such a stunning car makes it even stranger that Chevrolets Corvair only had a 10 year run.
Why didn’t the run last longer? Despite the bad rap from Ralph Nader, the air cooled engines and the funky 90 degree fan belt sideways turn (prone to prematurely fail) meant frequent overheating especially at idle and stop/go traffic. Imagine driving one if these in the recent heat wave(s). They were notorious oil leakers, and had a constant gas fume smell. We and our neighbor owned one and were always comisserating on the drawbacks, and happy to finally trade in for something, anything better. Good riddance.
Lower inertia magnesium fan and alternator, vs generator, solved the throwing belt problem, but after the bad reputation had stuck. Viton rubber seals had not yet been invented that now seal Corvair engines oil tight, way too late to help back then.
The main issues as to why the car was discontinued was that it was way too expensive to build. Look at the as tested price, Impala territory. Also, coming emissions standards were more difficult to meet with an air cooled engine. As widely stated, Mustang is given as the reason, but Corvair’s fate was sealed before that. Handling and braking were not what sold ‘merican cars back then, it was cheap power on cheap gas. Nova, then Camaro did that.
The engine alone costed nearly as much to manufacture as the aluminum 427.
Sooner ot later, even if all of the other bugs got worked out, the specter of stringent time-tabled emissions standardizing would have eventually doomed any air-cooled engine (except of course, the Porsche flat with liquid-cooled cylinder heads) anyway
The Mustang is what killed the Corvair, not Nader nor anything else really. By ’65 GM already had the Camaro in development as a direct competitor to the Mustang, and there just wasn’t a solid business case for continuing to produce two completely different compact sporty cars, one of which was relatively underpowered, more expensive to build, and shared nearly nothing significant with any other GM model.
If anything, GM kept the Corvair in production longer than they otherwise might have, just to spite Nader and avoid the appearance of capitulation, tho’ this did also help them recoup their investment in the Corvair a bit longer. Of course, the 2nd-gen Corvairs had already resolved the issues that Nader critiqued about the original Corvair anyway.
The Mustang contributed to the Corvair’s demise, no doubt.
But the introduction of the Chevy II to counteract the Falcon was the first step. Chevy couldn’t get the price down far enough and the Falcon hit the target, being a smaller car that basically acted like a bigger one.
But there was another trend going on that spelled doom for the Corvair. The rear-engine configuration was a dead end. Even its biggest proponent, Volkswagen, was going away from it by 1969. They came out with the 411 and 412, but after that, it was front engine, front drive all the way. The last new rear-engine design that came out of VW was the third-gen Transporter, known in the US as the Vanagon, and even it eventually abandoned air cooling. By 1980, the only air-cooled rear-engined cars still in production were the Porsche 911 and the legacy VW models being built in Central and South America.
Even the other European rear-engine proponents like Renault, Simca, Hillman, Fiat, NSU had abandoned those models, replacing them with front-drive cars like the Fiat 127 and 128, the Renault 5, the Simca 1204 and later Horizon, etc.
Safety and emissions regulations were only going to get tougher and GM would have had to certify drivetrains that fit only one car. And redesign the Corvair body to make it more crashworthy.
The Corvair’s fate was sealed because its configuration was obsolete.
But the introduction of the Chevy II to counteract the Falcon was the first step. Chevy couldn’t get the price down far enough
The cheapest 1962 Chevy II listed for $2003; the cheapest ’62 Corvair was $1992. Price was never a factor.
The rear-engine configuration was a dead end.
Tell Porsche that. GM did a lot of development work in a gen3 Corvair, with a modular engine and other new aspects up to about 1965, when the Mustang made any thoughts of another generation moot. In any case, as a sporty car, an American Porsche, there’s no reason it couldn’t have continued for some time yet. The Mustang made it obsolete overnight.
Sure, the Corvair was not a long-term proposition. And the 1971 Vega was essentially the replacement for the Corvair; a small, stylish, good-handling sporty compact. If it had been properly developed and had a hi-po engine option form the start, it would have had that segment of the market largely to itself.
As to the Corvair’s sales, until 1966 it sold quite well, had an very healthy market share, and outsold the Chevy II in 1964. More on that here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/chart/cc-charts-domestic-compacts-1958-1960-no-the-corvair-was-not-a-flop-it-had-a-higher-market-share-than-the-f150-does-today/
A more nuanced analysis is that while the Corvair’s rear engine limited its ultimate market potential and ultimate lifespan, the unexpected and overwhelming success of the Mustang drastically hastened its demise. Or killed it off quicker than it would have otherwise.
Davy,
All of your criticisms are just parrots of issues raised by people who, to my mind, have never driven a Corvair. The fan belt issue was self-inflicted by drivers who either set the belt too tight or used a belt the wrong size. Sure, as they aged leaks appeared, but so do most front-engine cars. To this day, you can take a tour of any parking lot more than a year old, and you’ll find a big dark spot marking the “front” end of any space.
As for overheating in traffic, I drove a 1966 Corvair in Southern California for three years while attending Grad school between 2006 and 2009, and it was a breeze.
Just drive one.
Chevrolet Corvairs simply don’t overheat ‘at idle’ or in ‘stop/go traffic’.
In turbo charged form, they can at constant highway speeds (60 MPH / 100 Ks) run high cylinder head temps, but will this NOT be experienced at idle or in slow moving traffic.
Put simply, at idle or in slow moving situations, the engines fan produces more cool air than the engine can produce heat. An overheated Corvair simply needs to pull over or slow down, but in this situation the driver would leave the engine fan running so as to cool the engine.
They do look great! I had my ’65 out for a spin yesterday, and then I stopped to look at a Tundra on the Toyota dealer lot on my way home. When I got in the Corvair and shut the door, the bracket that holds the front window guide broke and the front of the glass fell into the door. Sigh. 58 years is a good run, but the Corvair is filled with little things like that.
I will say that in 16 years and 20,000 odd miles, I’ve only thrown a fan belt once (early on). The key is to run them loose. Once I learned that, I haven’t had a problem. Still, it’s kind of a hokey system.
Aaron, I solved the window issue on my 65 Monza by never installing the windows after completing the body and interior restoration. I made a commitment to never have to raise them or the convertible top! IMO, at the time, without a truly dedicated owner and an understanding dealer service dept / outside shop long term ownership from new would be rare. Oddly enough I did meet such an owner last Aug at local car show at Allaire Village. Carl related to me that he needed new car once he was accepted to the Newark College of Engineering in the fall of 1964 (also my Alma mater).After cross shopping and test driving the Mustang and the Nova- a Corvair Monza was a clear choice -” They were just to boring, handled like crap and wouldn’t be very good in the snow” he stated. He drove the Madeira Maroon coupe all four years, throughout his early employment, courted his wife, and transported his family only retiring it after ten years. Drove it leisurely until restoring it about 20 years ago. His grandchildren love it! Carl told me it served him very well with few issues as he paid careful attention to maintenance and it quirks.
That is a great photo Aaron! With the well-weathered asphalt, clear blue sky, and vintage roadsign, it has a strong ’60s era feel. Gorgeous Corvair!
Thanks Daniel…sometimes the right spot for a picture just pops up.
From this side of the pond the Corvair Monza is fascinating:, it reminds me a lot of the VW Karmann Ghia but with a muuuuuchh more peppy (powerful) engine
It also looks great 😍
Interesting to compare its performance to the very first turbocharged ’62 Monza Spyder that was reviewed here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-motor-trend-road-test-1962-corvair-monza-spyder-chevrolet-has-a-problem-with-the-corvair-turbo/
Acceleration times improved only quite modestly with the bigger 180 hp engine; 0-60 in 10.9 seconds was not exactly impressive in 1965, at a time when V8 compacts/Mustang could beat that very readily.
In the ’62 review, the turbocharger’s lag came in for criticism “Chevrolet has a problem with the Corvair Turbo”. Despite little or no improvement, very little mention of that in ’65. Why?
I’m guessing for two reasons: the significantly improved handling made it such an exceptional driving car, for an American, and I suspect the press wanted to give it as positive spin as possible because it was unique and likely seen as vulnerable, in the face of the Mustang.
In my fantasy alternate universe, Chevy takes this absolutely gorgeous body design (totally agreeing with Carl’s comment above) and puts it on the unibody “bones” of the Chevy II V-8, thus creating a true Mustang competitor 2 years ahead of the Camaro.
The Mustang’s very long hood-very short tail proportions would have made it look obsolete anyway.
Interesting that both the Mustang and Gen 2 Corvair were nicely styled cars – that looked nothing like each other. The Mustang’s long hood/short tail look proved to be the winner in the marketplace, buoyed by its front engine inline sixes and V-8’s that appealed to traditional buyers. It was cheaper to build and its long option list made it appealing to a broad swath of consumers. The untraditional Corvair, although modestly successful until 1966, always had a sales ceiling. Car buffs loved it, but ordinary prospective buyers who could care less about innovation felt more comfortable with the Mustang.
Agree that there was no singular reason for the Corvair’s demise. Cost, the Mustang, the Falcon, the Chevy II, its rear engine design – all contributed to its limited sales appeal. Not good for a company where “only” 200,000 units a year was considered a failure, no matter how good the car. Nader’s book, had little to do with it. It didn’t hit the bookstores until 1966, long after its fate was sealed.
It is interesting that the turbo powerplant gets but a single paragraph in the article, and even then it is hardly a ringing endorsement. I think this was the automotive journalism version of “if you can’t say anything nice, . . . .”
A look back at superchargers and turbochargers on production cars up through the 1970s says that they were little more than a fix (or maybe attempt at a fix) for either poor breathing or a lack of cubic inches. The road tests of the day make clear that these early turbos were just not very satisfying to drive. But I guess they had to start somewhere.
The article seems to acknowledge that by 1965, there were “Corvair people” and people who were not Corvair people.
The Mustang was a factor, but far from the only one.
The Corvair was on its way out as early as 1962, when Chevrolet answered its dealers’ pleas for a Falcon competitor with the Chevy II. They repositioned the Corvair as a sporty model with the Monza, and maintained a respectable volume as a result, but the Mustang took that segment away.
Even then, the Corvair still had a niche market, but niche markets generally don’t generate much volume, which a low-priced car needs to be profitable. GM could make a relative handful of Rivieras, Toronados or Eldorados but they had higher margins.
The death knell for the Corvair was another developing trend. The rear-engine configuration was an engineering dead end. Everybody was abandoning it. Volkswagen was going full speed ahead with the Golf and the Beetle was becoming a legacy model, shunted off to Central and South America. The last new air-cooled rear-engined design was the third-gen Transporter, known here as the Vanagon.
Fiat dumped all its rear-engined models in favor of the 127 and 128, Renault did likewise, replacing the R8 and R10 with the R4 and R5, Simca introduced the 1204, and the Hillman Imp was never replaced either. Even Porsche was thinking about dropping the 911 in favor of the 928.
So with ever-tightening emissions and safety regulations, GM would have had to certify a drivetrain that fit only one car, and would have had to re-engineer it to make it more crashworthy.
The Corvair died from obsolescence.
The Corvair died from obsolescence.
The Corvair would have eventually died from obsolescence, but the Mustang drastically hastened that. GM was developing a gen3 Corvair, with a new modular engine, but all that stopped abruptly after the unexpected and overwhelming success of the Mustang in 1964-1965.
Nader was right about the direct air heater. Failure of any one of the six log exhaust manifold packings would pump carbon monoxide into the cabin. VW switched to a much safer fresh air heater sometime in ’63; Chevrolet never did.
A friend experienced pretty acute carbon monoxide poisoning from his 1975 Beetle sedan. They still had exhaust-to-fresh-air heat exchangers called heater boxes. The exhaust was plumbed right through air that was then ducted into the passenger compartment. Any rust holes or structural flaws made for an efficient little gas chamber.
https://www.jbugs.com/product/043255105G.html?msclkid=ed9424c2b6231277691d4021c7f1bc79
I’m one of those few that prefers the earlier Corvair’s styling .
-Nate
Ditto. And IMHO four-door 2nd Gen Corvairs were better looking than two-doors, the opposite of 1st Gens. That old fashioned flying wing roofline on the 1st Gen four-doors was just so dated by 1964.
65 red monza convert..high school colors red and white gorgeous red head on my right god i loved that car…and her@
It may be worth noting that several new Electric Vehicles have chosen rear engine (motor?) and Rear Wheel Drive as their powertrain of choice at entry level, not FWD. Being able to place motors directly at the wheels means no power losses. Tucking the motor and control electronics away at the rear seat area provides more front space for the passengers. All of this sounds quite familiar to Corvair owners!
Placing motors directly in each wheel will increase sprung weight, negatively affecting ride and handling.
For best ride and handling, placing one motor each inboard in front and rear, along with inboard brakes would be most advantageous